Ooobie on Everything

I like Rubio/Fiorina

This really is a sea of riches before us. I can imagine many variations of winning Republican presidential/veep candidates. How about Trump/Carson? Or Christie/Fiorina? Or Fiorina/Paul? Or best of all, Paul and Anybody. But  short of that, what could be better than a Rubio/Fiorina ticket? This would be the ultimate male versus female contest. Will the true male contingent vote en masse for their candidates, the smart and honorable candidates, or will they let an aged woman and a left-wing no-borders Latino from California run the country?

I went to a fund-raiser for Rubio in a dusty Florida town when he was running for the US Senate. He had already had an illustrious career in politics from an early age in his state and was a man of ambition. I supported him almost by rote, as a conservative Republican. But I came away deeply impressed on this first acquaintance with his breadth of intelligence and his spontaneity. My friend who went with me felt the same.

He’s presidential timber, I said. “A little young still,” my friend said. “But he has time, and he is one of the smartest guys I’ve seen,” I replied. She has never forgotten my prediction and here we are.

I just announced privately that I thought the GOP nominee would be Trump, maybe with a Carson veep. But that famous political dynamic is in motion, and the front-runner is morphing from Trump and Carson to Cruz and Rubio. Who knows, when the end is reached maybe the candidate will be my favorite, Rand Paul, the only man with a wise foreign policy.

When the issues are debated, the intelligent guys usually win. By trouncing the stupid CNBC moderators and making them look the political hack-losers they are, the candidates were able to put the light back on the real issues we face. These are all impressive candidates. Well, almost all of them. And at last the US audience was able to make an assessment of the characters and ideas of the candidates rather than those of the moderators. I think this stupid debate did the GOP a world of good. Keep the spotlight on ideas and the Dems are finished.

I think Rubio on any grounds is a formidable candidate nationally. He is charismatic, handsome, faithful, true, and smart as a whip. He is strong on US defense, too macho for my tastes but still smart, and he can run intellectual rings around any quantity of so-called MSM mavens. He is not in awe of the process or the vultures of the left.

Fiorina is essential to counter Hillary and she is as quick as Rubio. We would have two really, really smart Republicans countering a heavy-handed and corrupt politico from the Old School (old being the operable word) and no doubt her Latino attack-dog,  who shares her idea of borders as anathema. Welcome one and all. Fiorina is truly smart and able, demonstrably non-corrupt, and a likable personality. Put her against Hillary, even if only as candidate for Vice President, and she comes out well.

So, second to Rand Paul and anybody, I’m going to root for a Rubio/Fiorina candidacy. And when they win, Ben Carson as something really important. Along with all the other smart candidates we have finally fielded. We have waited a long time to collect such a group of candidates.

 


Is Hillary Clinton a Psychopath? Or just a chronic liar?

Well, that certainly takes the cake. Mrs. Clinton, formerly a Secretary of State, sat before a Congressional investigatory committee and lied her head off. She testified grudgingly, angrily, and self-righteously, and she lied her head off. Worse, she lied about things that everybody in this country with a scintilla of mental alertness knows she was lying about. She lied about something that video and our own memories prove she was lying about. It wasn’t like she fudged things, saying something like, “perhaps or perhaps not, I can’t recall as I was in the midst of a stroke.” No, she flat-out LIED about it.

Mrs. Clinton’s lies in her testimony were so many and so egregious that I can only touch on a few here, so let’s start with the very worst of her lies, all of them centered on Benghazi. Bear in mind that Clinton was the godmother of the bombing of Libya, the murder of Qaddafi, and the agreement to give diplomatic cover to a CIA facility for gun-running to the good terrorists in Syria. She owned everything doing with Libya. She evaporated from sight and sound when things went south in Benghazi, that snake-pit, thus suggesting that perhaps her pitiful agreement to abandon Americans under siege may have been due to her physical condition that resulted in the stroke.

Hillary Clinton told us that she never claimed that the Benghazi slaughter was a result of a video clip produced in America, a horrible hateful video clip that enraged people of the Moslem persuasion so much they just upped and spontaneously attacked a US facility of unknown purpose while carrying all sorts of deadly armaments and in the process killing a few Americans. But everybody knows she talked of it plenty of times, up until the moment the truth had been outed, when suddenly she mentions it as a terrorist act. She was clever enough to refuse to flog that lie on the networks, which work fell to the foolish Susan Rice, but she sold the story herself. Clinton claimed that she mentioned that video, but she never said (in so many words) “see, this mean-spirited video is what caused Benghazi, not my stupidity or my desire (in tandem with that of the Big O) to prevent ugly facts from dampening electoral enthusiasm in the upcoming vote.” In fact, she said that although she mentioned that video clip, it was merely a “warning” to others in the region not to try anything.

Fact: The father of one of the victims has made public his notes of his meeting with the Secretary after the deaths. He wrote at the time that Mrs. Clinton said “we’re going to arrest the filmmaker responsible for the video that caused your son’s death.” So she’s certainly lying now just as she was lying then. Not to mention that she used the arm of the law as a punishment for a man who was merely voicing his views.

Opinion: I somehow doubt that the failure of the USG to lift a finger in defense of its personnel in Benghazi would warn off any Moslem fanatic from doing the same thing, over and over and over, with great zeal. I mean, really. Only a fool or Mrs. Clinton’s fact-resistant supporters would buy such a lame story. Even Obama was cautious enough to drop the term terrorist early in the game — even if not in relation to Benghazi but to vague places around the globe.

I’m sitting here and just this instant Fox is replaying Clinton’s claim that she never denied there was an assault involved. The Congressman questioning her rightly slapped her down on that particular idiocy. Treyvon Martin jumping George Zimmerman was an assault. And she knows that too, but it all depends on what the meaning of is is. When the use of the word assault is one of the pillars of her defense, I think the case is made.

Here are some more lies she told. She said that she as Secretary of State would never dream of overriding a head of bureau’s recommendation on something like security, and she was sure no other Secretary of State would have, either. I refuse to believe for one instant that Hillary Clinton, with her degree of responsibility in Libya, would not have insisted on being fully briefed on Embassy concerns and putting in her two cents. Libya was her brainchild. Ergo, if security was denied, then ipso facto Mrs. Clinton failed to intervene in and overturn what she claims was the Department’s security consensus. I don’t believe that the Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security would have opposed the Benghazi security requests. I think this was a Hillary brainchild, but I can’t prove it. Any effort to claim that her views weren’t sought is a lie embedded in lies. It would be as if Secretary Dulles was not made aware of Embassy Moscow’s security needs during the Cold War. It would have been a case where the Secretary would indeed weigh in, were the decision contrary to his or her views on the matter. And surely the security of her dear friend Ambassador Stevens was of special importance to her? But no, she actually didn’t intervene to say, give them what they need. She deferred to her subordinate’s judgment.

One last thing that got me a little riled: her claim that she has always said she takes full responsibility for everything. I thought the Republicans did a good job trouncing her. One Republican, from Illinois, actually asked her to explain how she saw “responsibility” after one such assertion, In reply she blathered on about non-relevant things like, I was really busy, and then he called her out again. What in relation to Benghazi is your perception of responsibility? She couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question, but it is one that I have been pondering since she dropped out of sight for about three months after the disaster in Benghazi.

It’s as if every other word that ever comes out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth is a lie. She’s so artificial it is painful and the idea of four or  more years with a woman who sounds like a braying jackass is impossible to contemplate.

And that’s the subject of another Ooobie. How the Republicans could pull out a victory. I’m not sure they have a cohesive brain anymore, so it’s going to have to be by our own efforts to see that Clinton doesn’t get her hand in the public treasury again. It is my fervent wish that all her future endeavors should involve illicit transactions in tropical countries. By the way, that Representative Brooks got a huge hurrah from me for her brilliant and spirited attack on the non-existent Clinton character. Just great.